Nick Ross Statement Analysis

Nick Ross statements about the Murder of Jill Dando

Jill Dando was a high profile 37 year old UK TV presenter. In April 1999 she was murdered in broad daylight at the front door of her
London home with a single bullet to the head. The murder has never been solved. Barry George, who lived nearby was wrongly convicted
of killing her in July 2001, and served over 6 years in prison before being release. Jill presented a popular UK Crime programme
called "Crimewatch UK", which featured many public phone-in appeals to help solve UK crime. At the time of her murder, her
co-presenter on the show was Nick Ross. I suspect Nick Ross may be deceptive in the following statements. I also believe he
may know whether the motive for her killing was linked to her role on the Crimewatch TV show.

Media Comment made in 1999

This first comment was made by Nick Ross shortly after Jill Dando's murder, either the same day or the day after the murder.

Please note that this is a very important comment due to the timing.

Nick Ross : "There has been no indication that Crimewatch or any other programme would put a presenter at threat. There has
never been any sort of threat received by Crimewatch. I think everybody is grasping at straws, we hate the ambiguity and want
to know what happened. I don't just think it is premature, I think it is daft to look for Crimewatch connections except as
one of a hundred other things that have to be looked at"

This statement is highly "in the negative" which increases importance for us.

1. There has been "no indication"
2. There has "never" been any sort of threat
3. "I don't just think it is premature"

Given the context and dating of the statement, including that this is a show about crime, this is a most unexpected and
"unnecessary" statement. In any unsolved crime, the investigation is wide open. A show that is about crime knows this
as well as anyone. If this was said years later, it would have likely less weakness in assertion.

Why does Nick Ross have a need to so very quickly eliminate this possibility?

*Note that in context, a programme might find the publicity, including the "intrigue" of a possible connection, to be
invaluable publicity.

If there is no connection, why would the subject have the need to ridicule with "daft"?

The reporting of what has not happened and what he does not think is combined with the need to ridicule, rather than report.
The change in pronoun from "we" to "I" shows an increase in importance to the speaker, himself, personally. Why would he
have a personal need to ridicule this? We look at the statement from the perspective of context: dating and publicity.

Dating: since the statement was made close in time to the murder, most people will be very open to who may be responsible.
If the subject's show could stand to gain publicity by association, rumor, "conspiracy theories", and so on, why would he need
to ridicule that which could help the show?

His assertion comes off as "powerful" which Statement Analysis reveals to the contrary. It is the need to sound so persuasive,
itself, that we find the weakness.

This next interview is years later. In the interim, there was a conviction later overturned.

Audio Interview given in 2016

Introduction: In June 2016 Nick Ross spoke about Jill Dando's murder in an hour long interview for a series called Media Masters.
In this interview he talks freely about Jill Dando and her murder for about 13 minutes.

The interview is given more than 6 years later, which means processing time will impact language. It should not be missed that
at this time, the murder conviction meant, to the public, that the crime was "solved." If the individual was wrongfully convicted,
by this time, the "who do it?" theme should be wide open.

Note that in the initial interview, it was not wide open, with the subject showing a need to forcefully assert (and ridicule) the
notion of connection.

Interviewer : And was Jill Dando always going to be the kind of… was she the heir apparent as it were?

"Heir apparent" is likely related to employment, exposure and the resultant popularity and financial benefits from it.
In media programmes, the expression "heir apparent" is generally reserved to one who will be taking over the lead role
in an already established popular program.

Nick Ross : Well, she was the one I wanted as the heir apparent desperately, because she was such a consummate broadcaster,
and so I was sort of pushing for that and I think the producers also saw that as a great thing, and I remember meeting Jill
saying if offered, would she? Not knowing if she'd say yes or not. Actually, her eyes opened wide. She said, "I can't think
of anything," she said, "That I'd prefer to do." She was really keen.

First note that the question is plain: was she (the victim) the heir apparent, is a "yes or no" question. The expectation
is "yes", with the further expectation of cooperation telling us why this was. Instead, he begins with a pause: "Well…"

This makes the question, which in context seems simple, to be "sensitive" to the subject, himself.

Next, we note that he was the one who wanted her. "Well, she was the one I wanted…"

This introduces the possibility that someone, at that time, wanted someone other than Jill.

Question: Who may have wanted someone other than Jill?

He stated that he was the one who wanted her and he wanted her "desperately." He then tells us why: "she was such a consummate
broadcaster."

He tells us he was "desperate" for her to take over the show because of her as a consummate professional.

We now view his language to see how it compares to "desperation" for her hiring:

"and so I was sort of pushing for that and I think the producers also saw that as a great thing…"

"sort of pushing for that" is incongruent language with "desperation" with "sort of" a weak linguistic commitment, and "that"
to show distance. Although the distance may be explained by the passage of years, it does not explain the weak assertion. He
then tells us that the producers "also" saw that as a "great thing."

If this was such a "great thing" what caused him to tell us that he "sort of" pushed for it?

The language is incongruent.

It is both common and expected that one would speak positively regarding the dead. Why the need to portray her in this very
positive role while signaling that 1 person, in the least, did not agree, and that he only "sort of" pushed for her?

Please note: It is possible, given the inconsistency, that the subject, himself, is the person who may not have wanted her
for the position.

and I remember meeting Jill saying if offered, would she? Not knowing if she'd say yes or not. Actually, her eyes opened wide.
She said, "I can't think of anything," she said, "That I'd prefer to do." She was really keen.

"I remember" in an open statement is a signal of repressed memory. This can come from someone who knows there is more information
contained herein, but cannot access it. He does not tell us if he "said" or she "said" or if this was a thought of "would she?"
He then offers:
"Not knowing if she'd say yes or no"

He presents this as if he did not know if she would accept the position or not, but then says,

"Actually"

This is a word that indicates the subject is thinking of at least one competing thought, in comparison to "not knowing."

Note that "she said" is repeated separating a single answer, into two separate answers.

"I can't think of anything that I would prefer to do" would be the complete sentence. The reader analyst should consider that
following "I remember" the subject may not be accurately reporting what was said.

"Actually" betrays the theme of "not knowing" if she would say "yes" or she would say "no" to the offer.

When this is coupled with the incongruent assertion above, the reader/analyst should consider that the subject is not accurately
reporting what transpired between them, or his own desire for her to take the job.

This leads to a question:

Did he not want her for the job?

Or, is there a much deeper reason for the break and incongruence in the language?

Please consider this carefully.

This question should be considered strictly in context of:

*she is deceased
*would the subject believe that she might still be alive if he had not hired her?

This question is not answered, but open to consideration.

Is it possible that the subject's language indicative of regret, remorse, or a sense of personal responsibility
connected to her death?

This would be a connection between the programme and her death; the very thing he needs to repeatedly and weakly deny coupled
with the need to ridicule.

Rather than be stumbled by deception or even a faulty memory, could he be stumbling due to inner conflict?

Interviewer : She was an incredible broadcaster because she had she was accessible but had real gravitas as well.

This is to assert rather than allow the interviewee to give information. It does, however, allow for comment:

Nick Ross : She was also a hugely nice person in every sense. I mean I'm only five foot eight, five foot nine and Jill in high
heels was five foot nine, five foot ten. So in the opening shot or in the closing shot, it wasn't so bad in the opening shot

It is interesting to note that as he goes into memory to recall this particular period of time, while working, he calls her a
"person." This is a gender neutral word that is, in context about Jill's physical appearance (height). It may indicate a lack
of sexual interest or attraction to her at that time. It is also interesting to note what was important to him: his own lack
of height and how this impacted the optics.

Interviewer : You had to wear high heels as well.

Nick Ross : Well, exactly! What she did in the closing shot was where we stood side by side was she quietly kicked her heels
off so she didn't dominate me.

He reports her as a person and as one who did not "dominate" him. One might consider her stature with the producers, and that
she might have "outshone" him with her visible appearance. Even if this was not the case in the eyes of the producers, it was
very likely the case in his own perception. He did see her as some form of a professional threat.

Interviewer : That's lovely.
I mean that… presenters can be pretty catty. She was the opposite. I mean it was such a charming thing to do .

Interviewer : And how long did Jill present it, obviously until her untimely death?

This is an unfortunate mistake in the interview. While the subject (interviewee) was talking about Jill, he brought back
"death" to the context. It is always best, whenever possible, to not introduce words, especially words representing important
themes or topics, to the interviewee.

Nick Ross : Yes. Until 1999. So I'm trying to work out… it was a long time.

The word "until" tells us that the previous topic (her appearance compared to his) was something of importance to him. This
is insight into his thinking and into his personality: image is important to him.

Interviewer : What was that like, to have to open a show with a reconstruction of the murder of one of your own show's
presenters?

Nick Ross : Some of the press afterwards made it sound as though Jill and I were sort of very, very close friends which we
weren't. We used to go out to dinner with our respective spouses, in her case, fiancé, every now and then, but we were
colleagues. On other hand we were very close colleagues, we liked each other a lot.

Allegation: inappropriate relationship with Jill.
Denial: he gives a strong denial of an inappropriate relationship at that time.

A. The denial explained:

The use of "person" above, confirms his assertion against the press. Also, his use of the pronoun "we", which shows unity
and cooperation, confirms his claim of close colleagues. This is a truthful assertion from his perspective.

It is important to note what the insinuation of the press is met with: "we weren't." He then goes on to describe the relationship.

His denial is simply, "we weren't."

He has no need to revisit it with more denials, qualifications, nor ridicule. This is a strong denial that he does not feel
the need to attempt to strengthen.

B. The Denial in Contrast

Compare his denial to his original denial about connection between the programme and her death.

This comparison is very important because it uses his own reference point.

There are two accusations or assertions here:

1. Inappropriate Relationship
2. Did he know or suspect that Jill was murdered due to knowledge she should not have had? This is part of the overall theme
of media and/or public believing that there was some connection of her murder to her and the programme.

Interviewer : You could see that on screen.

Nick Ross :But we really liked each other.

"But" is to negate or minimize via comparison that which preceded what was just stated.

He is responding to the agreement the Interviewer made with "you could see that on screen."

It may be that he is rebutting imagery; that is, that their friendship was only superficial, such as may be common for television
programming, particularly where they can be "catty" in professional competition.

However, his next words suggest a possible different direction:

It was very difficult. I mean, oddly enough, when I got the phone call, a friend of mine who was the editor of a national newspaper
rang me and said, "Are you sitting down?"

Notice that the element of this sentence is timing: "when" and a "phone call" is introduced as "the phone call" and not "I got a
phone call…"

He does not introduce phone call properly.

This indicates that the word "but" is related to her death. It is her murder that is on his mind. He should have said, "I
received a phone call…" and once introduced, it would then become "the" call, or "the" news.

He was already thinking about her death when he asserted how much he liked her.

This strengthens the earlier analysis regarding possible remorse/regret in his wording.

If this is accurate, it then explains why he goes to not only exaggerated defense of the programming but to ridicule:

Projected guilt.

Consider that the need to exaggerate the denial to the point of calling it "daft" so early after the shooting appears artificial.

And you know, when people say that… and then she told me that Jill had been shot.

The element of time ("when") continues as paramount to the sentences. This is to indicate the trauma experienced when this call
came in: its impact is "to date", that is, the date of this interview.

The element of time as a dominant theme can sometimes indicate a change. What this means is that he may have thought one thing,
when he first heard she was murdered, and another thing later on, as he either contemplated or learned something else. This
"time" framing can be shifted.

It's a terrible thing to say, but my first sensation was relief, because I thought she was going to say something about my wife
or my children. "Oh, it's Jill."

This may appear callous, but it is likely truthful and to it, the language agrees (Jill is gender neutral); he likely first had
a "sensation" (hormonal response) that it was his wife or his children. This is a natural response, though often concealed.
That he does not conceal it is good for analysis, further indicating that he is speaking freely.

He recognizes the optic and feels the need to affirm honestly his emotion.. This need to affirm honestly his emotion makes it
sensitive. It does not appear that the sensitivity is due to deception; the language is congruent. The sensitivity with such
is often seen in those who wish to be, here in the statement, believed, because they are aware that there are other things
they have said or will say, that are not "honest."

And that's a… when I look back on that it's just awful, but that honestly was my first reaction. And then in the
next few minutes it really sunk in, and it was obviously a terrible shock. Doing that first programme, I had to ask the producer,
the first time I'd ever asked, can we do the introduction pre-record. I wasn't sure I could do it.

"obviously" brings the fact of "shock" into question. However, we cannot conclude to the contrary because of the passage of
time (years) which allows for processing.

Interviewer : Yes, because you would break down.

Better is to ask questions: "what did this do to you?"

Nick Ross : Yes. Terrible.

Interviewer : And did you get any useful leads from that show?

This is a "yes or no" question. His answer is very important:

Nick Ross : It was difficult but it's also frustrating. By this stage. you've got to bear in mind I had been doing
Crimewatch
for 15 years, when I started I didn't have any interest in crime at all, and certainly no knowledge about crime.

He avoids answering "yes or no", which now elevates the importance of this question.
Next we see that before answering the question, he shows his priority. It is not just his "15 years experience" but he has a
need to communicate a very powerful and personal issue: he did not have any interest in crime at all.

This must be believed by the audience before he answers the question.

It is to say, "I didn't want this. I don't like this. I did not choose this." It is a very powerful psychological distancing
that he feels so important, that it comes before the question of any leads into the murder.

He immediately distances himself from the question.

Next, the priority continues: I did not want this, and I had no knowledge of crime.

Note the wording: "certainly no knowledge about crime."

He not only didn't want this, he needs to assert his own innocence of knowledge of crime.

If he was in therapy, a well trained therapist would recognize this as a "protestation." The therapist would seek to uncover
not only what specific knowledge of crime is bothering him so much, but why said knowledge is bothering him so much.

Given the extremity of his denial of possible connection to the programme, he has a need to pronounce himself highly knowledgeable
so that he will be believed when he makes the denial. This, itself is weakness.

However, even with this setting of the stage to be believed, his choice of wording is still personal and likely the "leakage"
of having knowledge that he does not want to possess. It is as if to say:

"I know something I do not want to know. I did not ask for it, I did not want it, and I do not want it today, therefore, I
am going to wage war against it by exaggeration, ridicule or any other means at my disposal, even if it means blaming an innocent
person."

After 15 years, I had interviewed so many senior officers, so many detectives, I knew quite a bit - and one thing was pretty
clear to me is that you follow the evidence, you don't follow your hunch.

15 years of experience led him to assert only the obvious: "you follow the evidence; you don't follow your hunch."

He built an expectation of wisdom to follow, but offered only elementary.

This is a major point of weakness. He then follows the weakness with the need to ridicule:

The Sherlock Holmes stuff was absolute Horlicks.

The need to insult should be compared to his denial of being "very very good friends" above. He denied this plainly, yet the
possible connection to the programme, even years later, triggers a strong emotional need to persuade.

And the evidence here right from the start did not point to where the public clamour was pointing. The public clamour was pointed
to this being a conspiracy and everybody first says because of Crimewatch.

The sensitivity is very high as we see in the negative and the need for the lengthy sentence. Note "this" is indicative of
psychological closeness and "this being a conspiracy" is stated without a direct quote. The reader/analyst should consider
a possible embedded admission. It is "the public clamour" being given voice.

Interviewer : Yes, that Jill would have presented some segment on some underworld gang lord or something that wanted to
wreak revenge.

Instead of allowing the interviewee to present what conspiracy, the interviewer gives him the answer. This is a mistake. He
introduces "gang lord" into the conversation. We do not know if this was what the subject was referencing. Whatever the
subject was referencing was very important to him and this creates a diversion. The subject now has opportunity to direct
his attention to "gang lord", rather than anything (and everything) else that could have been on his mind. This is a critical
error in interviewing.

Nick Ross : Now look, you don't have to be a fellow of the Statistical Society, just do a bit of maths. We haven't had any
judges been murdered for sending people down. We haven't had senior investigating officers murdered for sending people down
for catching people. We haven't even had police sergeants murdered, or police constables, or for that matter PCSOs since.
It's not what happens in this country.

The "gang lord" is addressed.
He gives point after point of who has not been murdered. We look at the order:

He creates a horizontal triangle in his response; moving up from only the sentencing judges to investigators, but then reaches
the pinnacle at "senior investigators" and then changes direction. Law enforcement is police sergeants, constables and then
finally PCSOs.

What caused him to elevate investigations to "senior investigators"?

So the idea that a television presenter who was merely, if you like, articulating an appeal would be shot… it just didn't
make sense, it didn't make statistical sense… you know that phrase that scientists know called Ockham's Razor? You never
go for a more complicated explanation if there's a simple one. Well, everybody was going for the complicated explanations.

His argument is that if those responsible for investigating and sentencing are not targeted, why would a reporter? This is
reasonable.

What is at issue is two fold:

1. The interviewer introduced "gang lord" murder; not the subject.
2. The subject used the plural "complicated explanations", whereas "gang lord" murder is a singular topic.

The Interviewer is quick to agree, which often leads to a tangent being comfortably followed including using up the time of
the interview, itself.

Interviewer : Because it had a sense of drama, didn't it, and sense of fancy.

This would likely be popular exposure and "free advertising" for the programme.

We consider the plural above, and seek to learn if there is, indeed, something else on his mind:

Nick Ross : Yes, it did. And the other things. As soon as… I mean, I knew where Jill lived, I knew that she didn't actually
live there, she was staying with her boyfriend, so anybody who'd done this conspiratorially was terribly badly prepared
because it was pure chance she went there.

Recall he gives a legitimate argument against the "gang lord" targeting a voice rather than investigator.

Now compare it to his offering of "conspiratorially" and "terribly badly prepared" ridiculing the simple: following the victim.

Note who it is that brings this knowledge:

"I mean,I knew where Jill lived"
"I knew that she didn't actually"

He knew.

It is important that we note this. He knew. "I knew" is produced by him. It is repeated. We must consider what it is he
knew that would warrant repetition and immediate change to the pronoun "we":

We then found whoever had done it had been seen hanging around for a long time, which was pretty stupid, didn't have a
getaway vehicle, and shot Jill in a street called Gowan Avenue, which is a long, long straight street with virtually no
turn-offs. Now, come on. A professional killer wouldn't think to walk away down a long street with no...

It is no longer what "I knew" but "we", which could represent knowledge that went public. This would be an appropriate
change of pronoun, and should it change back to "I", it will increase importance for us. Note what follows:

I mean, there were so many other things, I'm (not) going to go through them all, but there was so many other things right
from the beginning.

He had the need to ridicule the idea of a professional shooter, rather than give the description of an amateur.

He tells us that there were "so many other things" that he ("I") knew but he is not going to through them all
"but" (refute assertion),
"so many other things "right from the beginning" which points to timing.

The element of time often indicates a change. This change can be a change in activity, or in context here, a change in
knowledge. This is his own knowledge ("I") which we expect to continue, but it doesn't:

Well, for example, when we knew she had her key in the door when she was shot.

The "back and forth" change from "I" to "we" is, in context, about knowledge. This tells us that he wishes to separate the two:

There is knowledge that he has and there is knowledge that we, the public, have.

The subject, himself, reveals the need to separate the two. This is an indication of knowledge he does not want to share.

This could be knowledge that is fact based, or it could be acute suspicion.

But instead of pushing her inside, shooting her there to muffle the sound, he'd shot her on the doorstep where she'd be
seen, where the sound was heard, and all that.

He has the need to tell us that this was not intelligent.

Everything conspired to this not being a professional hit.

For him, after all the years of interviewing investigators, the conclusion is singular: stupidity.

It cannot be, for him, that the shooter was not concerned with getting caught.

And yet in that first programme it was quite clear that the police were following, as they so often do, the public clamour.

This is a passive aggressive insult of police. This means he does not wish to be seen as insulting to police but holds
this thought of contempt towards them.

How would the many investigators he interviewed over so many years feel about this statement?

He then further amplifies his answer and seeks to reduce the inherent insult by joining himself to the theme:

It was one of the many occasions when I realized that the police are not sort of forensically independent of public opinion.
They are part of public opinion, they're pushed and maneuvered by public opinion just as the rest of us are. So it was difficult.

Interviewer : But within a few weeks they feel that they had their man at that point, didn't they, Barry George?

Nick Ross : Well, no they didn't. It wasn't a few weeks, and that was the frustrating thing. There was a detective who was on
the trail of Barry George, two witnesses had rung again and again and again saying this man was around at the time, had come
to them with trying to get false alibis thereafter, was behaving very oddly and they must look at him. They were really
concerned so much they kept bringing back. But the team, including when they had reviews from Scotland Yard, kept going
after conspiracy theories. So this detective knew that the… he was basically put off, and it was a year, after every other
lead had gone into the sand, it was a year later while that they went back to this.

This is a claim that the crime would have been solved by a detective with the murderer being Barry George except that
"this detective" (unnamed) was "put off" from following the evidence. Note that this "putting off" is declared to be
"basically." He reduces the commitment to this assertion by adding in "basically" and weakens it by psychologically
bringing the detective "close" to him ("this" detective) but not naming him.

Next, note the element of time throughout the answer. He began with what it "wasn't" ("It wasn't a few weeks") elevating
importance. He closes with "it was a year, and after every other lead had gone into the sand, it was a year later…"

What makes this focus upon the element of time so unusual is that Barry George has been found not guilty in a retrial.

It is the understanding of this analyst that the public outcry for the solving of the crime was strong and impatience was
echoed in media. The original guilty verdict was deemed "unsafe" by experts and eventually, he was retried.

Barry George was a career criminal which included sexual assaults and possible diagnosis of Asperger's. His history made
him a legitimate target, via profile, of an investigation.

This is raised because we now seek to learn if the subject still holds to this suspect. If so, it would be an "easy mark"
and not require much persuasion.

The element of time, such a priority for the subject, is not lost upon the Interviewer who now comments on it. It is also
interesting for the analyst/reader to consider: someone who has spent so many years interviewing professional investigators
knows that crime solving is time consuming.

Interviewer : Wow. It's amazing that you look back and you get these things wrong. I just assumed he emerged as the first
suspect, but a year? That's just unbelievable. And he was therefore at large for a year.

That it would take a year to solve a murder is, in the language of the Interviewer, "unbelievable."

This is not to be expected in the language of a crime show host of many years, exposure and interviewing experience:

Nick Ross : And one of the frustrating things is, I don't think there's a reason why I shouldn't say this now, because I
did Crimewatch I knew and a lot had fantastic contacts with forensic scientists, with forensic psychologists. And I rang
a forensic psychologist on the case and I said, "I think this is a declarable Syndrome, in other words I think this is
somebody with a personality disorder. This is… the nearest thing to this is the John Lennon shooting. And he said,
confidentially, this is exactly what he told the police. And yet they had ignored him for a year. Only after a year they
come back to this. So it was a frustrating year.

Time continues to be a powerful element in the subject, even though it has been more than 16 years since the murder.

He is consistently referencing time.

One should also consider how many times he is going to say "I knew" before asking, "What is it that you knew that is
present in its repetition?"

Interviewer : And when Barry George was convicted you clearly thought justice was done. Was it frustrating to see him
cleared?

First his assumption, then his question based upon his own assumption.

Nick Ross : It was astonishing to see him convicted. I mean, I'll be honest about that. I thought that the evidence against
him was very compelling indeed, as long as you think of evidence not in the way than English court thinks of evidence.

He is declaring that he is not "honest" about some things and "honest" about other things.
If the evidence was "very compelling" what caused this astonishment?

Instead of asking this question, the Interviewer offers an answer:

Interviewer : In other words it was largely circumstantial.

Nick Ross : Exactly.

No need for explanation; it was given to the subject who accepted it plainly.

The Interviewer furthers his own assumption:

Interviewer : There was an overwhelming mass of circumstantial evidence.

Overwhelming evidence of things where the arrows pointed at his guilt.

This is the assertion of the Interviewer.

He then moves to a rhetorical:

Interviewer : And they had just one particle, didn't they?

Nick Ross : Well, that was the frustrating, I mean, really irritating thing actually. The Crown Prosecution Service… people
got so used to forensic evidence, which of course we virtually didn't have for most of the last century, but now unless
there's forensic evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service is often very reluctant to prosecute, and so they wouldn't unless
there was some evidence. They found this ridiculous little speck of firearms discharge residue in one of his pockets.

Please note that "firearms discharge residue" is considered solid evidence in a gun murder. The subject calls it "ridiculous
little speck", which should have been followed up by the Interviewer. Instead, the Interviewer returns to the complaint of
priority of the subject: time.

Interviewer : Because this has been a year later by the time he was arrested.

Nick Ross : Yes, absolutely. Now, it may have been relevant, it may not have been relevant, but even at the time I was hoping
they wouldn't present it because I thought it would just divert from all the other stuff.

The subject, with 15 years experience in dealing with crime and investigators reduces "evidence" in a murder case of a close
colleague to "stuff."

What caused him to call evidence "stuff"?
What was "all" that he was "not" going to go into earlier?

It's odd that we talk about circumstantial evidence, laypeople do, as though that's secondary evidence. But actually it's
what scientists would say it's the best evidence.

If the gun residue diverted, it would have been from circumstantial evidence, in context. The question is repeated:

Why change "circumstantial evidence" into "all the other stuff"?

If you go and talk to people at the Erickson Investigation Bureau for example, it is their best evidence, it's a
circumstantial evidence, that's how they put cases together. So we shouldn't diminish it in a way that is often talked
about, as I say, rather pejoratively. That evidence would seem very strong, and it seemed to me that if they used this
firearms discharge residue they were on a loser to nothing. So I was amazed it was convicted to be honest. Amazed.

He now explains his amazement: the suspect was convicted on forensic evidence, which, he asserts, was a diversion from
the circumstantial evidence.

What has he offered as "circumstantial evidence" thus far?

He has only offered what a professional murderer would not do.

Interviewer : But glad.

Now note the return to the element of time. The element of time is given more priority than the latter acquittal of the suspect.

Nick Ross : I thought he did it. And indeed, then as you may be aware, there were several other court appearances, and
several appeals rejected, and it went on and on and on and on, and eventually it went to… I can't remember how long, many
years afterwards, he managed to get a retrial. At this point some of the witnesses - I mean, it was years later - weren't
prepared to give evidence, some of the others had forgotten, and without the… we know that the case fell apart. Interestingly,
when Barry George's solicitors then applied for recompense because he had been sent to prison…

Interviewer : It was denied.

Nick Ross : Yes. Recompense was denied on the basis that a jury might reasonably have come to the conclusion that he did it.
Even so, many people who haven't read all the reams of evidence, who weren't in court, and just go on sort of bits and pieces
they read in the media, it's amazing how many of them still think he was set up by the police as though he was the fall guy.
I mean, he didn't do it in English law, that was the end of it. But the police aren't looking for anybody else.

Here he targets the media but his passive aggressive insult is directed to specific people: they are "lay people" who:

a. Haven't read all the reams of evidence
b. who weren't in court
c. "just go on bits and pieces" from media
d. they "amaze" him because they think the suspect "the fall guy"

Interviewer : Did you consider leaving the show after Jill passed away?

Nick Ross : No, never, because firmly I never believed it was anything to do with Crimewatch, and I've always rejected the
conspiracy theories.

"No" was a good answer. Instead, he goes on to:

"never", which now weakens the denial of "no." He weakens it further with the need to explain "why", though he has not
been asked why. This is seen in the word "because" in his answer.

Next, the reason is given in the negative, with the repetition of the word "never" in "never believed it was anything
to do with Crimewatch."

He is not done weakening the denial; he goes even further;

"…and I've always rejected the conspiracy theories."

He does not believe his own words.

Note that he has always "rejected" the conspiracy "theories", with "rejected" meaning refuse to accept. Also note that
"theories" is plural; meaning for him it is not just "one."

Had he said "no" without the need to persuade, it would have been much stronger. Instead, he goes into the negative,
repetition and unnecessary explanation to indicate such extreme sensitivity that it belies his denial.

Consider his measured response to the press saying they were "very very good friends" and compare it to this topic.

One topic produces a denial that is strong enough to stand on its own. The other denial shows a desperate need to persuade.

Truth is its own entity.

We like to see truth separated from a person as the "psychological wall of truth.". This means that the person relies upon
the truth to defend him. He does not need to call upon his own character, nor explain away, or even ridicule in a denial.

Truth is timeless. It is not impacted by the passage of time, nor by culture, nor even by popularity nor opinion.

Truth is truth regardless of when it is stated, or if it is believed.

He shows a vast difference in his language between the two denials. The more need to "call in reinforcements", the weaker
the denial.

And I happen to know about the most ludicrous conspiracy theory of all. I mean, it's almost infantile.

Not only do we have further ridicule (most ludicrous indicates his belief that others are also ludicrous) but he uses the
word "infantile."

It should be noted that while in this defensive posture, he has called upon this word, "infantile."

One might ask why such a word came into his vocabulary at this time, in this context.

Here he now introduces new material to the interview. After ridicule the topic introduced is important to the subject:

It's so… it's risible. And yet it was actually used seriously in the Old Bailey. And this was that it was to do with the
Yugoslav war.

The subject introduces the "Yugoslav war." Because he introduced it, it is important to him and to us. We listen to the
information he discloses and the specific words chosen to communicate this information.

And I'll tell you how this story came about. Alison Lewis is, or was, Jill's great confidante, she was her agent, she was
a friend of mine, I know Alison, knew Alison well. Alison been asked by the police, who had got anything against Jill.
She couldn't think of anything. Weeks later… we had had a letter from somebody, it wasn't a green ink letter, it was a
sort of… "Well, I don't think you are very fair in that appeal about Yugoslavia because the Serbs had been victims as well."

The Yugoslav war is introduced.
Allison Lewis is introduced.
Serbs are introduced.

These topics are important enough for him to not only introduce, but to stress the relationship that he had, and has, with
Jill's "great confidante", Alison Lewis. He repeats his "I know" phrase and in its own repetition, he adds, "I knew Alison
well."

And she mentioned this to her boss. He got quite excited about it and told it to some journalists, and all of a sudden this
story emerged that Slobodan Miloševi?, in the middle of a civil war hundreds and hundreds of miles away, had decided the civil
war could be resolved by going and shooting an English television presenter. I mean…

He introduces "Slobodan Milosevic" in the interview.

This is done while classifying Alison Lewis' boss without name, but as one being "quite excited" about this information.

Why the need to classify as such?

Next, note "hundreds of miles away" is added to the description.

Note he introduces a mock motive: "had decided the civil war could be resolved by going and shooting an English television
presenter…"

One might consider that a television programme host would have knowledge of how international affairs, particularly in
Western Europe and the United States, are connected, via both the United Nations (or formal treaties) and through financial
ties.

It is something the subject needed to present as absurd, rather than it being absurd. The interviewer, always ingratiating,
quickly agrees:

Interviewer : Insane.

For a theory to be "insane" (the IR's language) but be the "most ludicrous" of all the conspiracy theories, he devotes
the most amount of words to, even more than the words used to describe the deceased.

To describe that which is "most lucdicrous" and the most to be dismissed, he used 208 words.

To describe the deceased, he used 159 words if we include the words about his own decision making process regarding her
being the heir apparent. If we remove this and only use a word count regarding his linguistic disposition towards her,
the gap is even greater.

The topic that is the highest priority is to dismiss a single theory about his friend and colleague's murder.

This specific topic is given the "most" status worthy of ridicule and dismissal; yet it his priority.

Nick Ross is not honestly reporting his knowledge/belief about the murder of Jill Dando.

Ross exhibits guilt regarding what he "knows" about the murder; it is a powerful emotion that causes him the need to
ridicule any possible connection of the murder to Jill's murder.

What is very difficult to discern between is "guilty knowledge" versus "acute suspicion."

Nick Ross is withholding information in the interview about the murder of Jill Dando. Is this information knowledge of the
motive of the murder? It is acute suspicion of the motive of the murder?

To know with precision, more sample is needed.

In a psycho-linguisatic profile (a natural profile that emerges from our words, revealing our background, experiences,
priorities and personality traits), that came from a short interview about the murder, the most important topic for the
subject is the single theory that he offered regarding the murder of Jill Dando.

He repeatedly asserts that he "knows" while withholding information. A powerful and competing motive is that of "time" for him.

This is found, generally, in two themes:

1. A change in activity
2. A change in knowledge
Nick Ross was not involved (activity) in the murder of Jill Dando.

His language reveals a change in thinking over time that is both acute and uncomfortable.

He reliably denies a romantic relationship with her at the time referenced. (this denial is contextually binding: it only
covers the time he referenced).

Yet, he has the need, as one with many years experience in dealing with criminal cases (along with media savvy exposure to
international connections between countries), to ridicule, rather than deny the connection with the programme.

The question: what is the source of guilt within Nick Ross that combines with the need to ridicule any possible connection
of Jill's murder with her professional exposure to information?

Does he feel responsible for any possible exposure to information?

Did Nick Ross experience guilt over something Jill Dando

Professionals often mimic deceptive people because, in fact, they are "deceptive" in the sense of withholding information.
This includes medical professionals, intelligence professionals, negotiators within business and within crime, as well
as a host of other professions. Yet, with Nick Ross, very high emotions are provoked within him when the topic of
connecting the murder to the programme.

He introduced the Yugoslav civil war with the need of promoting any connection as absurd.

Where western governments are concerned, terrorism is a part of overall strategy for some nations, besides propaganda,
as they seek support. If said support is not realized, it can, and frequently does, result in acts of terrorism. This
is of particular note wherever the ideology/religion Islam is present in the conflict.

Investigative journalist Richard Hall presented this transcript for analysis with the question of whether it is possible
that Jill Dando died as a result of coming into contact with sensitive information via the progamme, as seen only in the
language of Nick Ross.

It is.

There is language consistent with protecting very sensitive withheld information within Nick Ross' interview.

His need to move the conversation away from this connection is acute. This is where the weakness is most evident.

If there was no connection to the programme, the expectation remains the same: a reliable denial.

It is interesting to note how an emotional topic like an inappropriate relationship with Jill produced not only a reliable
denial but a non-emotional response with little defense. Yet, the topic of connection of Jill's murder to the programme
produced something entirely different in him.

The former, being personal, produced a "low emotion" response; while the latter, distinctly non-personal, produced a very
"high emotion" response.

It is likely an underlining anxiety produced by the topic for the subject, in spite of the years of processing the murder.

We view his language of the murder with the number of years of processing time in context and measure its response.

We measure the response to inappropriate relationship allegation, and then we measure the response to the allegation of
connection to the programme.

It is only the topic of connection to the programme that brings out such a significant elevated response.

That Nick Ross "knows" more than he is stating here is evident. Whether it is factual knowledge or acute suspicion is
not known with precision.

The topic of connection needs, for him, ridicule. That he connected it to the Yugoslav civil war warrants exploration
because it is both international (extending Jill's murder outside of the locale) and sensitive to him to the point of
mockery.

Even with approximately six years of processing, he does not show significant progress from his statement made shortly
after the murder:

Nick Ross : "There has been no indication that Crimewatch or any other programme would put a presenter at threat. There
has never been any sort of threat received by Crimewatch. I think everybody is grasping at straws, we hate the ambiguity
and want to know what happened. I don't just think it is premature, I think it is daft to look for Crimewatch connections
except as one of a hundred other things that have to be looked at"

This is a critical need to dismiss and ridicule and the repeated protestations made years later, only strengthen the
original analysis. Six years did not weaken this stance.

It was very weak when made, and with the expectation of time tempering it years later, it remains very weak.

That he knows or suspects that Jill's murder is related, somehow, to her position at Crime Watch, remains strong. Whether
she was told, read, or exposed to information regarding the possible tie with political terrorism, any of these could
produce guilt within Nick Ross. His friendship with her was reliably reported.

When one bears information one cannot reveal, the burden can increase with time, and when asked about, it can produce
hyper-sensitivity within the language. Hence, the emotional reaction couples with the need to dismiss, ridicule and
even insult others.

It is this international connection (not "Yugoslav" specific, but "international specific") that warrants exploration.